On October 15, 1985, a bomb exploded
in Salt Lake City, Utah, killing Steven F. Christensen, a Mormon bishop. Later that
morning, Kathleen Sheets, the wife of another bishop, was killed when she picked up a
package containing a booby-trapped shrapnel bomb. The following day, a Mormon document
dealer named Mark Hofmann was seriously injured when a bomb exploded in his car.

After an intensive investigation, it was discovered that Mark
Hofmann was the bomber. Hofmann was transporting a third bomb he had constructed at the
time of the explosion. Although this bomb was prepared to kill someone else, it
accidentally went off in his own car. Hofmann later confessed to the murders and was sent
to the Utah State Prison.

In October, 1986, before Mr. Hofmann pleaded guilty, we published
the book, Tracking the White Salamander. About two months after Mr. Hofmann pleaded
guilty in 1987, we published a second book, Confessions of a White Salamander. In
these books we discussed many important details regarding Hofmann's murders and the forged
documents he sold to the Mormon Church and other collectors. Three other books were
published the following year. The first book to appear was Salamander: The Story of the
Mormon Forgery Murders, by Linda Sillitoe and Allen Roberts, two Mormon historians.
The second book was entitled, Mormon Murders, by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White
Smith. The last book, A Gathering of Saints: A True Story of Money, Murder and Deceit, was
penned by Robert Lindsey, a reporter for the New York Times.

The authors of all three of these books interviewed investigators
and all reached the conclusion that some leaders had not been forthright in their contacts
with law enforcement officials. In addition, they felt that the church had been
suppressing important documents from its members.

The Mormon Church leaders were very disturbed about the bad
publicity and on September 18, 1988, the LosAngeles Times reported that
"sources within the Mormon media establishment... said the church already has begun a
battle against what it believes is the most serious attack against the church since the
polygamy controversy... The church has embarked on a massive study of the books and news
articles in an attempt to assemble a master list of errors, misquotes and exaggerations.
'Our response to all the allegations made against the church will be made public in about
60 days,' [Richard P.] Lindsay said."

Notwithstanding this public announcement, this "master list of
errors, misquotes and exaggerations" has never been made public. Some time later,
however, it was announced that Richard E. Turley, Jr., managing director of the LDS Church
Historical Department, was writing a book which would give the church's side of the issue.
Mr. Turley's work has finally appeared under the title, Victims: The LDS
Church and the Mark Hofmann Case.

While Richard Turley seems to have nothing to say about the two
books we have written on the subject, he attacks all three of the other books. He does,
however, make observations concerning our work on the Salamander letter and other
questionable documents. His comments with regard to our work are generally good and
contain nothing requiring a response.

One strange thing about the Turley book is that although the index
lists thirteen different pages which refer to our work, it does not have a single
reference to the three books he is attacking. Moreover, the names of the authors
(Sillitoe, Roberts, Naifeh, Smith and Lindsey) never appear in the index. It seems that
everything he has written about these authors is found in the footnotes. Mr. Turley
apparently does not want these authors or their books to have more publicity than they
have already received.

However this may be, in his footnotes Mormon apologist Richard
Turley tries to undermine the authenticity of these books. He seems to be especially upset
with charges that church leaders were trying to cover up facts during the investigation
and does his best to try to smooth over these accusations. Unfortunately for the Mormon
Church, however, Mr. Turley's laborious work of shoring up faith in church leaders comes
crashing to the ground when a person reaches page 248 of his book. It is at that point
that Turley divulges one of the most embarrassing secrets that a Mormon historian has ever
revealed. Mr. Turley begins by saying that "March 1986 brought a startling
discovery." Turley goes on to explain that at that time church officials became aware
of the fact that they had an important part of the McLellin collection concealed
in the First Presidency's vault and that it had been there since 1908!

William E. McLellin was one of the original members of the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles in the Mormon Church. He was well acquainted with Joseph Smith and
other church leaders and knew a great deal about what was going on in the early church.
Later, however, he turned against the church and accused Joseph Smith of altering the
revelations which are found in the Doctrine and Covenants. The current edition of
the Doctrine and Covenants still contains an "Explanatory Introduction"
which purports to be the "Testimony of the Twelve Apostles to the Truth of the Book
of Doctrine and Covenants." According to Daniel Macgregor, William McLellin claimed
that this "Testimony" was "a base forgery." (Changing
of the Revelations, page 32) McLellin was very upset that Joseph Smith would change
revelations given by God. The Salt Lake Tribune for Oct. 6, 1875, printed this
statement regarding McLellin: "His faith was first shaken by the changes made in the
revelations. He had been careful to keep copies of the originals, presented proof that all
the early revelations were changed three times,and considerably
amended before they appeared in their present form."

In 1838, Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of
Mormon, claimed that Joseph Smith had "A dirty, nasty, filthy affair" with a
young woman named Fanny Alger. (see Mormonism - Shadow or Reality? pages 203-204)
William McLellin claimed to have some explosive information on this matter. He asserted
that Joseph Smith's wife, Emma, had told him about this affair. In his book, Mormon
Polygamy: A History, 1986, page 6, Richard S. Van Wagoner wrote: "McLellin's 1872
letter described Alger's relationship with Joseph Smith. 'Again I told [your mother],' the
former apostle wrote, that 'I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She
went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked
through a crack and saw the transaction!!!She told me this story too was
verily true.' McLellin also detailed the Alger incident to a newspaper reporter for the 6
October 1875 Salt Lake Tribune." In 1852 Mormon Church leaders acknowledged
that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, but they were silent concerning an incident
in the barn.

Those who are familiar with the Hofmann case know that Mark Hofmann
falsely claimed that he had discovered the McLellin collection and that he was helping the
church obtain the collection so that it would not fall into the hands of the anti-Mormons
who would use it to embarrass the church. Since William McLellin had made some startling
charges like the one regarding the Fanny Alger affair, church leaders would naturally be
nervous concerning what such a collection might contain. In his confession, Hofmann
described a conversation he allegedly had with Gordon B. Hinckley, a member of the
church's First Presidency, regarding the McLellin collection:

A Well, of course, I basically told him that I could tell him what my fears were
concerning its getting in to the enemy's hands, or whatever.... And his interest wasn't so
much in having the Church obtain it as having it going someplace where - In fact, I would
almost say he almost didn't want the Church to obtain it, he just wanted to make sure it did
not fall in to the enemy's hands which was good since I knew I didn't
have it, I knew the Church couldn't obtain it. (Hofmann's Confession,
page 529)

Eventually, it was decided that Hugh Pinnock, a General Authority in
the Mormon Church, would help Mark Hofmann obtain a loan of $185,000 from First Interstate
Bank so that he could go to Texas and obtain the McLellin collection. According to Richard
Turley, Pinnock felt that the collection required special protection: "Pinnock
offered to arrange for secure transportation of the documents by jet or armored
car, but Hofmannsaid he would send them back to Utah by registered mail,
adequately insured." (Victims, page 124) The transaction was to be very
confidential. David E. Sorensen, "who had recently been asked to preside over the
church's Canada Halifax Mission,'' would buy the collection and hide it away from the
enemies of the church. Later, however, he would donate it to the church. Richard Turley
reported that "Sorensen later recalled that Pinnock 'asked if I would listen to a
matter of concern to the churchand determine if I would be in a position
or interested in helping.'... Sorensen recalled, 'Elder Pinnock was interested in seeing
if I might purchase the collection. If so, would I consider donating it to the church at a
later date.'... Sorensen later remembered saying that he would be happy to help the church
if he could but wanted to 'investigate the matter in a business-like way.' " (Ibid.,
page 136)

Bishop Steven Christensen was supposed to authenticate the McLellin
collection for Sorensen on October 15, 1985. Since Mr. Hofmann did not have the
collection, he killed Steven Christensen that morning so that the transaction could not
take place.

When church leaders later discovered that they already had the most
significant part of the McLellin collection hidden in the First Presidency's vault and
that it had been there since 1908, they found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. If
they admitted that they had the collection all along, it would prove the charge made by
critics that the church suppressed important documents from their people. In the Salt
Lake City Messenger for August 1985, we spoke of "the role that Mormon
leaders have taken in suppressing important documents." We noted that in 1983, Gordon
B. Hinckley, a member of the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, secretly acquired a
letter - later found to have been forged by Mark Hofmann - which purported to be in Joseph
Smith's own hand and linked the prophet to money-digging and magic. President Hinckley
believed the letter was authentic. He paid Mr. Hofmann $15,000 for the letter and then hid
it in the First Presidency's vault.

When researchers learned what happened and said that it was being
suppressed, the church decided to "stonewall." A spokesman for the church said:
" 'The church doesn't have the letter... It's not in the church archives or
the First Presidency's vault.' " (Salt Lake Tribune, April 29, 1985)
Finally, when it became clear that some Mormon scholars had photocopies of the letter and
were going to turn them over to the news media, the church backed down, and the same
spokesman admitted his earlier statement was "in error": "The purported
letter was indeed acquiredby the church. For the present it is
stored in the First Presidency's archives..." (Salt Lake Tribune, May 7, 1985)

In the issue of our newsletter cited above, we made this
observation: "The First Presidency's archive or vault, where the 1825 letter was
concealed, is undoubtedly the ultimate 'black hole.' Documents which are embarrassing to
the Mormon Church disappear into this bottomless abyss and are seldom heard of
again."

The fact that church leaders could lose sight of the McLellin
collection in the First Presidency's vault for almost eight decades shows just how dark it
is inside the "black hole" which contains the deeper secrets of Mormonism.

The disappearance and rediscovery of the McLellin collection would
almost make one wonder if the right hand knows what the left hand is doing at church
headquarters. While Mormons might expect this type of thing to happen at some bureaucratic
agency, they will have a difficult time explaining how this could happen in a church which
is supposed to be led by direct revelation from God. The implications are very serious
indeed. For example, how can one explain the fact that Mormon leaders were helping Mark
Hofmann obtain a collection from Texas which they already had in their own vault?

In view of the circumstances, it would be very difficult for church
leaders to come forth and admit they had made such a serious mistake. On the other hand,
however, they faced a far more serious problem if they did not reveal the existence of the
McLellin collection. To continue to suppress the existence of the collection would mean
that church leaders would have to deliberately keep a key piece of evidence hidden from
investigators who were working on the Hofmann case. Unfortunately for the Mormon Church,
Richard Turley makes it very clear that church leaders chose to keep law
enforcement officials completely in the dark concerning the existence of the McLellin
collection.

The importance of this piece of evidence cannot be overstated. While
investigators seemed to have a great deal of evidence that Mark Hofmann forged documents
and defrauded investors in his schemes, they had a real problem establishing a motive for
the murders. At first some investigators believed that the bombings might relate in some
way to the Salamander letter. (Hofmann had sold the Salamander letter to Steven
Christensen for a great deal of money.) This theory, however, could not be confirmed by
any evidence. Christensen apparently believed the letter was genuine and seemed pleased
that Hofmann had sold it to him.

The McLellin collection, on the other hand, seemed to provide an
explanation for the murder of Steven Christensen. Hofmann's reluctance to produce the
collection was very upsetting to Christensen. Since Hofmann did not have the collection,
there was nothing he could do except to continue to give Mr. Christensen excuses.
Consequently, friction continued to mount between the two men. At Hofmann's preliminary
hearing, Curt Bench said that about three weeks before the murders, Steven Christensen
called him and wanted him to convey a message to Mark Hofmann. Bench testified that
Christensen told him that "a member of the First Quorum of Seventy and an apostle...
were upset because Mark had defaulted on a loan to a bank and had written a check and the
check had bounced... They were quite upset over this and said some very serious things
could happen as a result of that not being taken care of."

Curt Bench went on to say: "Steve told me that various things
could occur if Mark didn't make good and some of them were he would certainly lose his
credibility and credit with the Church and with President Hinckley, that criminal
action could be taken, that he could conceivably go to jail, he could also be
sued by the bank or even by the Church if the Church was sued. He could lose his
membership in the Church.... It was very serious. And Steve wanted me to
convey that to Mark..." Bench also testified that "Steve used the term
crook" when referring to Hofmann. (Tracking the White Salamander, page 24)

Investigators did not believe that Mark Hofmann had the McLellin
collection to turn over to Mr. Christensen and felt that this was Hofmann's motive for
killing Christensen - by getting rid of Christensen he could buy some time. They could
not, however, actually prove that Hofmann did not have the documents hidden away some
place. There was no way to know for certain. If Mr. Hofmann should produce the collection
at the time of his trial, it would destroy the motive for murder and could ruin the murder
case. The Mormon Church, of course, had the vital information needed by prosecutors in the
First Presidency's vault. Church leaders knew that there was no way that Mark Hofmann
could produce McLellin's diaries because they already had them. It is plain, therefore,
that Mormon Church leaders were suppressing some of the most important evidence in
the entire case!

A close examination of Richard Turley's book shows that Mormon
Church leaders were engaged in a conspiracy of silence with regard to the McLellin
collection to save the church's image. The following quotations from Turley's book make
this very clear:

March 1986 brought a startling discovery. Historical Department personnel seeking
information about William McLellin had contacted Dean Jessee.... Jessee visited the
department and explained to Glenn Rowe that he had found some interesting information
about McLellin in his research files. Jessee's notes referred to correspondence in the
department's uncatalogued Joseph F. Smith collection. The correspondence mentioned
McLellin's diaries and other belongings.... Rowe and his staff searched the collection and
located letters that amazed church officials.

The first letter had been written by J. L. Traughber of Doucette, Texas... Dated
January 13, 1908, and addressed to the librarian of the church, the letter explained that
Traughber had an original copy of A Book of Commandments.... what Traughber offered
next was even rarer. He wrote, "I also have the Journal,in
part, of Elder W. E. McLellinfor the years 1831, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6." Traughber said he had tried to get more of the journal from McLellin's widow, but
she had refused to give them up "as she said she did not want some things to be
known." Traughber said he also had some manuscript books that McLellin had
written.... and offered to sell them for fifty dollars.

On January 18, 1908, President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors wrote to President
Samuel O. Bennion of the Central States Mission. The Presidency... instructed Bennion on
how to handle the offer: "While we have studiously avoided expressing any particular
desire on our part to purchase the things mentioned by Mr. Traughber, we desire you to
know that we would like very much to possess McClellan's [sic] Journal,if for no other reason than to prevent the writings of this unfortunate and erratic
man, whose attitude after his apostacy was inimical to the Prophet Joseph Smith,
from falling into unfriendly hands;and for this reason alone, we feel
quite willing to pay the price asked for these things..." The Presidency also
suggested that Bennion contact McLellin's widow to obtain the rest of the journals, even
if their acquisition were to cost another fifty dollars.

The letter to Bennion mentioned an interview Joseph F. Smith and another church leader
had had with McLellin in 1878, when McLellin had told them he had writings he wished to
publish. The Presidency wrote Bennion that the manuscripts... might be the same ones
McLellin had mentioned in 1878. "We hope they are," the First Presidency wrote,
"as it would be an act of mercy on our part to purchase them, and
thus prevent them from being published by unfriendly handsto the
injury of innocent people."

Rowe and his staff also found a February 12, 1908, response from Bennion to the First
Presidency. Bennion reported that he... had acquired the proffered materials from
Traughber.... He said he would send all the acquired items to the First Presidency that
day by registered mail.

Rowe had kept his new supervisor, Richard Turley,informed
about Jessee's clue and the letters to which it led. Turley told Dean Larsenabout the letters, and Larsen informed (apostles] Packer and Oaks,
who in turn contacted the First Presidency.When Gordon
Hinckley learned of the letters, he asked Francis Gibbons if the
First Presidency's vault contained the items the letters mentioned. Gibbons searched the
vault. Hinckley and the other church officials then learned to their astonishment,that the church had owned McLellin's journals and manuscripts all along.

The journals... revealed a man deeply dedicated to his religion....

The little manuscript books, on the other hand, typified the later McLellin, an avowed
enemy of the church....

Like the materials the Tribune had discovered, the McLellin items found in
church possession were not the McLellin collection touted by Hofmann.... Unlike the Tribune's
discovery, however, the church's McLellin materials included a key itemfrom the collection Hofmann claimed to have bought. That item, McLellin's
early journals, confirmed to church officials that Hofmann was a fraud.

The discovered documents did not fall within any of the subpoenas issued to the church,
and thus officials were not legally obligated to mention them to anyone.
Still, it was apparent they were relevant to the case,and those
involved in the discovery felt the documents' existence should be revealed. Yet disclosing
them would not come without a cost.Church officials had sought to
dispel the notion that they were buying documents to hide them. Disclosure of the newly
discovered McLellin materials, however, would reinforce notions of church
suppressionbecause those documents had in fact been bought at the
direction of the First Presidency and locked away nearly eight decades earlier,eventually to be forgotten.... Alluding in his journal to the day's remarkable
discovery, [Apostle] Oaks wrote, "Today [Boyd K. Packer] & I learned that the
Church has some documents that have been unknown until now, but will be of great interest
when they are revealed, as they should be prior to the Hoffmann trial (in my
opinion)."

What church officials did not know was that there would be no trial. (Victims: The
LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, pages 248-251)

This is a shocking disclosure to be coming from the pen of Richard
Turley, managing director of the LDS Church Historical Department. As the reader will see
from the quotation above, Mr. Turley acknowledges that he himself became aware of the fact
that the church had the McLellin collection in March 1986. Although Turley practiced law
before becoming a historian, he obvious felt it was more important to protect the church
than to tell investigators working on the Hofmann case about this important matter. The
church continued to suppress knowledge of the collection for six years after
it was rediscovered.

Why Turley would reveal the matter at this time is a matter of
speculation. It could be that Mr. Turley was bothered by his role in the matter and felt
compelled to bring out the truth. On the other hand, there could have been concern that
too many people knew what had happened and that the "enemies of the church"
would eventually find out about the cover-up and publish the facts to the world. When
Mormon leaders are convinced that something embarrassing is about to leak out, they
sometimes try to get the information out first. For example, the Mormon Church at first
denied that the 1825 letter existed, but then rushed to print it when it was discovered
that scholars were preparing to release it to the press. In any case, we are very pleased
that Mr. Turley has revealed this information.

After Mormon historian Dean Jesseereported
the existence of the correspondence mentioning the McLellin collection, a number of people
became aware of the fact that the church had obtained the collection. Church archivist Glenn
Rowereceived the information from Jessee. Rowe, in turn, reported the
matter to Richard Turley and Turley relayed the information to Dean
Larsen.Larsen then informed apostles Boyd K. Packerand
Dallin H. Oaksabout the matter. These two apostles
"contacted the First Presidency." The First Presidency is composed of President Ezra
Taft Benson (the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the church), President Gordon
B. Hinckleyand President Thomas S. Monson. Francis Gibbons was
the one who finally found the McLellin collection in the vault. In addition, members
of Glenn Rowe's staff also knew about the matter.

Although at least a dozen people knew about the McLellin collection,
no one seems to have reported the matter to investigators. Those on the lower levels may
have felt that church leaders would tell police that the McLellin collection had been
found. Instead, the highest leaders of the church chose to remain silent and put the
church in a cover-up situation. Since the church is supposed to have a "living
prophet," one would think that he would point out that the information must be
reported to investigators.

Furthermore, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks had enough legal knowledge that
he should have demanded that a full report be immediately turned over to the police.
Richard Turley says that Apostle Oaks "served as a United States Supreme Court clerk,
University of Chicago law professor, American Bar Foundation executive director, Brigham
Young University president, and Utah Supreme Court justice." (Victims, page
116) Mr. Turley also states that "Oaks's experience as a lawyer and judge made
him sensitive to investigators' need for any informationthat might help
solve a crime..." (Ibid., page 163)

On page 171 of the same book, Turley reports that after the
bombings, Shannon Flynn came to church headquarters and talked with Apostle Oaks. Flynn
wanted to know what to tell investigators. Oaks responded, " 'As soon as I learned
that Mark Hofmann had been the object of a bomb, I knew that I had some facts that would
help police.... I talked to two F. B. I. agents. I told them everything I knewabout it. The Church is going to cooperate fully and it has absolutely nothing
to hide. Sometimes there are some confidential transactions but this is a
murder investigation. Confidentiality is set aside.We will
cooperate fully. ' "

On page 153, Turley tells of Mark Hofmann coming to Apostle Oaks'
office: "Hofmann said he thought bombing investigators might want to question him. He
worried about what to tell them. Oaks told him to tell the truth.... Oaks said that as far
as he knew, Hofmann's activities with the McLellin collection, though confidential... had
nothing to do with the bombing investigation. Police probably would not ask him about the
deal. If they did, he should answer truthfully and completely."

Richard Turley shows that Oaks also gave Alvin Rust similar advice:
"[Martell] Bird recorded, 'He told Brother Rust that he should tell the truth in
every instance, and that he should not be worried at all about the Church,because when the facts all come out, the Church will have no need to be
embarrassed...' " (page 175)

On December 11, 1985, Apostle Oaks addressed members of the
Historical Department. According to Turley, Oaks encouraged employees to be forthright:
"Of the bombing investigation, he said, 'We are like others in that we must
cooperate fully inan investigation and tell the truth on all
matters material to that investigation.' " (page 226)

While at first Apostle Oaks claimed that he told the F. B. I.
"everything I knew" about the Hofmann case and freely gave advice to others
about how they should be completely honest and provide all relevant informationto investigators, when he realized that the church would be embarrassed by the truth,
he clammed up just like the other church leaders. While Richard Turley claimed that
"Oaks's experience as a lawyer and judge made him sensitive to investigators'
need for any informationthat might help solve a crime," when he saw
the church was in danger, he put a bridle on his tongue and joined in the conspiracy of
silence.

The reader will remember that Turley quoted this statement from
Apostle Oaks' journal on the day that the McLellin collection was discovered: "Today
[Boyd K. Packer] & I learned that the Church has some documents that have been unknown
until now, but will be of great interest when they are revealed, as they should be prior
to the Hoffmann trial (in my opinion)."

While Turley seems to feel that this entry shows Oaks' openness, it
seems to foreshadow the possibility of a coverup. The reader will note, for example, that
Oaks does not mention the fact that he is talking about the McLellin
collection. He merely states: "I learned that the Church has some documents..."
Why would he hesitate to identify the documents? If Turley had not revealed that Oaks was
talking about the McLellin collection, a person reading his diary today would not know
what he was talking about and would assume that whatever the documents were, they had been
made available.

Apostle Oaks' statement that "when they are revealed, as
they should be prior to the Hofmann trial (in my opinion)"seems to suggest that there was a possibility that they would not be revealed prior to
the trial. (They, of course, would be of no value to prosecutors after the trial.) The
words, "in my opinion" seem to imply that if the other church leaders did not
want them available, Oaks would support the decision.

If the church had no plans for a cover-up, Apostle Oaks would have
written something like the following: "Today I learned the Church has had the
McLellin collection stored in a vault since 1908. Since this is very important to the
Hofmann case, we have called the county prosecutor and informed him of this development.
He will pick up the documents in the morning."

Oaks' statement that the documents should be revealed "prior to
the Hofmann trial" certainly raises an important question. By March 4, 1986, the day
Oaks made the entry in his journal, church leaders were well aware of the fact that
prosecutors were preparing for Mark Hofmann's preliminary hearing. If the prosecution
could notproduce sufficient evidence at that hearing, Hofmann would be set free
and there would be no trial. For this reason investigators were working feverishly to
obtain the evidence necessary to be sure that Hofmann would be bound over for trial. The
fact that the Mormon Church had rediscovered the McLellin collection would have been
extremely important to their case.

Since Apostle Oaks did not mention anything about revealing the
McLellin collection "prior to the Hofmann trial," it is obvious that church
leaders were planning to keep it suppressed at least through the preliminary hearing. The
preliminary hearing did not start until April 14, 1986. This gave church leaders almost a
month and a half to turn over the McLellin collection to investigators. Instead of coming
clean, however, they chose to keep the documents hidden. The General Authorities of the
church were already concerned enough about the bad publicity the church would receive
during the preliminary hearing and must have hoped that no trial would ever occur. This,
of course, is exactly what happened and the church never had to reveal the truth about the
McLellin collection to investigators.

Since Salt Lake County prosecutors did not have the important piece
of evidence that the church could have provided, their case on the murders was not as
strong as it could have been. They were obviously concerned about the strength of their
case. Robert Lindsey reported the following: "At the end of a week of testimony,
David Biggs [one of the prosecutors] wrote in his journal: 'I really feel as if
we've missed the "glue" that connects the pieces of this puzzle
together. The pieces don't seem to want to stay together. We have
evidence, motive, murder, but it is all just a degree off. I'm still trying to find out
what the problem is.' " (A Gathering of Saints: A True Story of Money, Murder and
Deceit, page 317)

As we have already shown, Richard Turley has admitted that the
McLellin collection in the church vault "included a key item"
which "confirmed to church officials that Hofmann was a fraud." Turley also
acknowledged that "it was apparent they (the McLellin documents] were
relevant to the case, and those involved in the discovery felt the
documents' existence should be revealed"Aperson
certainly does not have to be a lawyer to know that the church should have immediately
made these documents available.

Church leaders had publicly stressed how they were cooperating with
investigators. In the beginning, the church officials pledged " 'our fullest
cooperationwith city, county and federal authorities in the
investigation.' " (Victims, page 165) Hugh Pinnock, the General Authority
who helped Hofmann obtain the loan for $185,000, wrote a letter to Steven Christensen's
widow in which he said: " 'Several of us have talked with law enforcement people. We
want them to know whatever is relevant.' "(Ibid., page
176)

On October 19, 1985, "the church issued its news release...
'From the outset of this investigation,' the release noted, 'the Church has cooperated
fully with federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, responding to
every inquiry and request. The Church will continue to cooperate with law
enforcement officials to bring to light any facts that may contribute to this
investigation. ' " (page 177)

Church leaders obviously broke their pledge to "bring to light
any facts" that would help investigators. Richard Turley tried to justify the
church's suppression of the records by saying: "The discovered documents did
not fall within any of the subpoenas issued to the church, and thus officials were
not legally obligated to mention them to anyone." (page 250) This is
certainly a very poor excuse. It seems analogous to a person finding a pistol used to
commit a murder and then maintaining there was no obligation to turn the gun over to
police because it had not been subpoenaed.

Investigators certainly would have subpoenaed the McLellin
collection if they had any idea that the church had it. On October 19, 1985, the Mormon
Church issued a news release which stressed that the McLellin collection had never been
purchased by the church: " 'So far as we have been able to determine, no Church
officials or personnel have ever seen the "M'Lellin Collection," nor has
it been purchased by the Church, directly or indirectly.' " (Victims,
page 178)

On October 23, 1985, the church held a press conference. According
to Richard Turley, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: " 'I had never heard of
the McLellin collection,'Hinckley said, and he asked Hofmann what was in
it... 'I have never seen any such collection,' Hinckley continued, 'and know
nothing about it beyond that.' " (Ibid., pages 191-92) Turley quotes
Apostle Dallin Oaks as saying the following at the same press conference: "
'Moreover,' Oaks explained, 'to have the church involved in the acquisition of a
collection at this time would simply fuel the then current speculation reported by the
press that the church already had something called the McLellin collection or was trying
to acquire it in order to suppress it.' " (page 193)

Since Mormon leaders had emphatically stressed that they had never
seen the McLellin collection and that the church had notobtained
it, law enforcement officers had no reason to think otherwise. When the collection came to
light, Mormon officials should have immediately reported the discovery. Instead, however,
they took advantage of the fact that investigators were in the dark concerning the matter.

That there was, in fact, a conspiracy of silence is evident from the
following: Hugh Pinnock, the General Authority who arranged the loan of $185,000 for Mark
Hofmann, was called upon to testify at Hofmann's preliminary hearing. The following is
taken from an official tape recording of the hearing:

ROBERT STOTT - To your knowledge, did any authority in the LDS Church ever
obtain or possessthe McLellin collection?

HUGH PINNOCK - No.

This would have been a very good time for Mr. Pinnock to have said,
"Yes, the McLellin collection has been in our vault since 1908." Richard Turley
tries to explain away this testimony by saying: "He [Pinnock] had not been
told about the McLellin materials discovered the previous month." (Victims,
page 274) It may be true that Hugh Pirmock was not told about the discovery, but if this
is the case, it raises a very important question: why would the other church leaders keep
him in the dark about such an important issue. The answer, of course, must be that they
were doing their best to hide the information from investigators and feared that if
Pirmock knew about the collection he might have to tell prosecutors about it.

Even if Hugh Pinnock did not know about the discovery, President
Gordon B. Hinckley, who many believe is really running the church because of President
Ezra Taft Benson's age, knew all about the matter. He was subpoenaed to testify at the
preliminary hearing about two weeks after he learned that the church had the McLellin
collection in its vault.

Richard Turley gives this interesting information about a meeting
Hinckley had with the prosecutors:

Before the preliminary hearing, Hinckley received a visit from prosecutors Bob Stott
and David Biggs. Church counsel Wilford Kirton also attended the meeting....

Biggs recalled that they told Hinckley why they were there, and then Kirton began to do
most of the talking. Eventually, however, the prosecutors explained that they needed to
talk to Hinckley so they could find out what his relationship had been with Hofmann.
Hofmann had claimed a close relationship with the church leader, telling people that he
had Hinckley's private numbers and could get hold of him day or night, in the country or
out. Prosecutors wanted to know when, where, and how many times Hinckley had met with
Hofmann and with Christensen

Hinckley said he had met about half a dozen times with Hofmann, but he could not recall
any information about those meetings beyond what he had told investigators earlier. His
answers frustrated both Stott and Biggs."President Hinckley was very
little help, extremely little help,"Stott later
said. "His memory of the occasions was very poor."... Though he kept a journal,
Hinckley had been forced to turn to Francis Gibbons when trying to reconstruct for
investigators the meetings he had with Hofmann. (Victims, pages 253-255)

Although we may never know what President Hinckley told the
prosecutors concerning the McLellin collection at that time, one thing is certain: he did
not reveal that the church had the collection in its vault.

All accounts seem to agree that Mr. Hinckley did not want to testify
at the preliminary hearing. Although there were probably a number of reasons why he did
not want to be questioned under oath, he must have been very concerned that he would be
asked questions which might lead to the disclosure of the rediscovery of the McLellin
collection. Richard Turley gives this information:

Because Hinckley was so busy, [church counsel Wilford] Kirton suggested to the
prosecutors that they postpone calling him as a witness until the trial itselfrather
than using him at the preliminary hearing. Hinckley added that he would prefer not to
testify. Kirton's suggestion riled Stott, who thought the attorney was being
paternalistic. "How old is he?" Stott later asked, recalling the incident.
"Anyway, the old experienced lawyer going to tell the young lawyer how to handle the
case. Ibecame very incensedat that... he's saying, 'Why
don't we do it this way? Why don't we save President Hinckley for the trial and don't use
him at the prelim.?' I got a little upset at that, him trying to tell me how to run my
case. And so I just told him, 'I'm in charge. I need President Hinckley. And he'll
testify.' ...

"Kirton let it be known explicitly, 'Is there some way we could get along
without President Hinckley?'Stott recalled. 'Is there some way that he
could have a deposition or whatever it takes?' "

Stott told Kirton the only way the prosecution would consent to have Hinckley not
testify at the preliminary hearing would be for the defense to agree to stipulate to what
the prosecution wanted Hinckley to testify about if he were present: that he bought the
Stowell letter from Hofmann on a certain date for a given price. Kirton and
Hinckley asked Stott if he would broach the subject with the defense, and he agreed to do
so." (Victims, pages 255-56)

President Hinckley finally got his way and did not have to
testify at the preliminary hearing. Robert Lindsey wrote the following regarding
Hinckley's escape from testifying at the hearing:

To most members of the prosecution team, it was plain that Mark Hofmann had blackmailed
the church. It was equally clear that leaders of the church were terrified that Gordon B.
Hinckley would be required to testify against him and would be forced to testify, under
oath, about his dealings with Hofmann.

From the first weeks of the investigation, lawyers for the church sought to head off
this possibility....

Shortly before the preliminary hearing was scheduled to begin, David Biggs and Bob
Stott met with Hinckley...

Hinckley said it was not in the best interests of the church that he be subpoenaed to
testify at the preliminary hearing... He had far more importantthings
to do as a member of the First Presidency's Office than to appear in court; Hofmann's
hearing was insignificant compared with the important challenges that he faced in his
job...

Gordon Hinckley was not summoned as a witness after all..

Judge Grant, a devout Mormon, later attributed his absence to the trial attorneys'
concern for Hinckley's health. But church spokesmen said Hinckley was not ill, and in fact
the reasons were more complex than that. Ron Yengich, Hofmann's lawyer, was no more eager
to have the leader of the church that dominated the community raise the specter of his
having been blackmailed by his client than the church wanted a man close to its Prophet to
appear to have been blackmailed.

The stipulation itself proves to be embarrassing to the church
now that it is known that President Hinckley knew about the rediscovery of the McLellin
collection before the stipulation was entered into. According to Richard
Turley, the "stipulation, which Biggs noted was 'prepared and signed by Mr. Yengich
and Mr. Stott,' identified Gordon Hinckley and stated that he met with Hofmann sometime
between January 11 and 14, 1983... Finally, it stated that Hinckley 'has never
seen nor possessed nor has any knowledge of the whereabouts of a document or a group of
documents known as the McLellin Collection.' " (Victims, page 303)

It is clear, then, that notwithstanding the fact that President
Hinckley was fully aware of the rediscovery of the McLellin collection, both the
prosecution and the defence understood him to say he never knew anything about any
"group of documents known as the McLellin Collection."

Richard Turley tries to minimize the importance of this by
saying that the stipulation was "read into the [court] record without Hinckley ever
seeing it. Had he reviewed it, Hinckley could have revised the
stipulation to reflect the church's discovery of McLellin materials in its
possession." (Ibid.) The reader will notice that while Turley says that
Gordon B. Hinckley "could have revised the stipulation," he
does not go so far as to say that he "would" have revised it.
In any case, it is clear that President Hinckley not only refused to provide the important
information about the McLellin collection to the prosecution, but his statements made to
those who took part in the stipulation led them to believe that he had absolutely no
knowledge of the location of any McLellin material.

In holding back the McLellin collection from investigators, the
Mormon Church was taking a real risk. As we stressed earlier, Richard Turley admitted that
the collection included "a key item" which convinced church leaders
"Hofmann was a fraud." Moreover, Turley acknowledged that this "key
item" was "relevant to the case." This raises a very important question:
what if the suppression of the McLellin collection by church leaders made it impossible
for prosecutors to get Hofmann bound over for trial? If prosecutors had failed to make a
strong enough case, we could have had a cold-blooded murderer walking the streets of Salt
Lake City today. Although there is no way of knowing for certain, it is reasonable to
believe that Hofmann might murder again.

If church leaders were convinced that Hofmann was a fraud after
learning about the McLellin collection, why was Judge Grant not allowed to see this highly
significant part of the evidence?

Richard Turley explains that the church hoped that the prosecutors
had sufficient evidence without the church revealing the discovery of the McLellin
collection: "If the prosecution's evidence was as strong as some sources had hinted,
the preliminary hearing would almost certainly result in Hofmann's being bound
over for trial." (Victims, page 251) Turley, however, tries to show that the
church did not have an inside track on what was going on in the Salt Lake County
Attorney's Office: "The cautious distance being kept between church headquarters and
investigators meant church officials remained largely unaware of the
direction the investigation was taking, except to the extent they could piece together
clues from media reports, subpoenas, and other sources." (Ibid.)

Turley reports that on February 6, 1986, Apostle Dallin Oaks
expressed doubts regarding the prosecution's ability to prevail: "Dallin Oaks, who
viewed the case with his extensive legal background, began to wonder about the adequacy of
the murder case against Hofmann and about whether, even at this late date, the prosecution
had filed its charges prematurely. 'I hope the prosecution has more evidence on the murder
charges than the newspaper speculation has hinted,' he confided in his journal." (Ibid.,
page 243)

It is certainly deplorable that church leaders would take such a
gamble with regard to a person charged with two murders just so they could protect the
church's image. On page 251, Turley tries to justify this by making this strange
statement: "Because a preliminary hearing was not a trial to determine ultimate guilt
or innocence, state law would allow prosecutors to try again if they failedduring the first hearing to prove probable cause." Turley seems to be hinting
that if the prosecutors did not succeed the first time around, the Mormon Church could
bring forth the McLellin collection and a second preliminary hearing could be conducted.

Does Mr. Turley realize the implications of what he is suggesting?
The preliminary hearing extended over five weeks causing great pain to the relatives of
the victims. In addition, it cost a great deal of money. It seems hard to believe that if
prosecutors were unsuccessful in their first attempt to bind Hofmann over for trial, that
church leaders would have stepped forward with the McLellin collection. The church was
already very upset with the bad publicity it had received. In the Messenger for
September 1987, p. 8, we quoted Apostle Dallin Oaks as saying: "In the course of this
episode, we have seen some of the most sustained and intense LDS Church-bashing since the
turn of the century.... the Church and its leaders have been easy marks for assertions and
innuendo ranging from charges of complicity in murder to repeated recitals that the Church
routinely acquires and suppresses church history documents in order to deceive its
members and the public."

If church leaders had come forth with the McLellin collection after
an unsuccessful preliminary hearing, it would have caused a far greater outcry than they
encountered during the early investigation of the bombings. The church would have been
accused of covering up and protecting a murderer to save face with the public. A second
preliminary hearing would have probably taken a good deal of time to schedule and
complete. In the meantime a murderer would have been running loose. Furthermore,
investigators and prosecutors would have been incensed at church leaders who had hidden a
"key item" from them. Many of them were already upset with the church's lack of
cooperation. Fortunately, Judge Grant did find there was enough evidence to warrant a
trial.

Richard Turley makes this peculiar statement regarding the period
after the hearing: "When the curtain closed on the preliminary hearing, church
officials... anticipated a long intermission before the next acts began in the legal
drama. While waiting for the curtain to rise again, they continued to cooperatewith investigators and prosecutors gathering evidence in the case." (Victims,
page 307) How Turley can convince himself that the church was cooperating when they were
withholding one of the most important pieces of evidence is very difficult to understand.
That church leaders would continue to hide this vital information from investigators is
almost beyond belief.

The new information about the suppression of the McLellin collection
also raises questions regarding the plea bargain which finally ended the Hofmann case
without a trial. It seems obvious that church leaders did not want the case to go to trial
and were hoping that some kind of agreement could be reached. Although President Hinckley
managed to maneuver his way out of testifying at the preliminary hearing, he probably
would have been called as a witness at the trial. Hinckley would have been very
uncomfortable testifying concerning the McLellin collection when he knew that it was being
suppressed in the First Presidency's vault. Furthermore, Glenn Rowe knew about the
rediscovery and it seems likely that he would be called as a witness.

If prosecutors had an airtight case they probably would have sought
the death penalty and would not have agreed to the type of plea bargain they entered into.
Although we may never know for certain, the fact that the church refused to provide
important evidence it had in its possession may have made the prosecutors more willing to
accept the agreement and cancel the trial.

The suppressive actions of the top leaders of the Mormon Church have
done more damage to the church than the "enemies of the church" could have done
in many years. It is going to be very difficult to sweep this matter under the rug. Their
actions will undoubtedly haunt the church for many years to come.

As stated earlier, in 1908 Joseph F. Smith, the sixth prophet of the
church, ordered that the McLellin collection be purchased by the church to keep it
"from falling into unfriendly hands." If President Smith had made the collection
available to researchers instead of suppressing it, its contents would have been known by
researchers and Mark Hofmann never could have claimed to have the collection because
scholars would have known that it was in the church archives. Consequently, Steven
Christensen would not have become involved in trying to obtain the collection from Hofmann
and Christensen and Kathleen Sheets would probably be alive today.

In trying to keep Hofmann's purported McLellin collection from
falling into unfriendly hands, Hugh Pinnock followed in the footsteps of President Smith
and opened the way for the tragedy when he arranged a loan of $185,000 for Hofmann to
purchase the imaginary collection.

As if this is not bad enough, when church leaders discovered the
real collection, they were so embarrassed that they kept it hidden from investigators.
This conspiracy of silence forced investigators to spend untold hours trying to pin down
the truth about the collection. If the church had been forthright about the matter,
investigators could have spent this time in pursuing more profitable areas. The church's
silence concerning this matter definitely hurt prosecutors and left them with a weaker
hand in their dealings with Hofmann's lawyers.

While it is true that the General Authorities of the Mormon Church
have preached openness, honesty and trust in God from the pulpit, when it came right down
to it some of the very highest leaders of the church were unable to live up to the lofty
teachings they have set forth. They apparently did not believe that the God they serve was
able to handle the embarrassing situation the church found itself in. Therefore, they
proceeded to protect the church with their own strategy. In their attempt to save the
church, they gave an advantage to a man whom they knew was a desperate criminal who was
charged with murder. Their behavior with regard to this matter did not match up with their
twelfth Article of Faith: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers,
and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. "

While it is true that they did not receive a subpoena for the
McLellin collection, it was only because they kept its existence well hidden from the
prosecution. Now that this information has come to light, the actions of these leaders
speak louder than their words. The message seems to be that the church's image
is more important than the truth, even to the point of withholding key evidence in a
murder investigation! We feel that this is a terrible example to set before the youth of
the church.

While Richard Turley stresses the cooperation by church officials
during the investigation, the evidence seems to provide a different story. Robert Lindsey
relates the following:

...Salt Lake City detective Jim Bell spoke at a meeting that had been called to review
what detectives knew... He said he suspected the church was concealing information
about Hofmann and the murders.

"They're hiding something; the church is doing everything it can to make
this as difficult as possible.I've never seen anything like this in a
homicide investigation." (A Gathering of Saints, page 236)

Lindsey went on to say that "many of the investigators"
felt "that they were being stonewalled by leaders of the church." (Ibid.)
On pages 268-269 of the same book, we find this information:

The salamander letter and several other documents Hofmann had sold to the church were
still in Washington at the FBI laboratory. When Ted Cannon [Salt Lake County Attorney]
pressed the church to let his investigators look at the originals of those that were still
in Salt Lake City, a lawyer for the church said that would be impossible,because some of the documents were extremely confidentialand
the church did not want to risk having them made public.

Cannon said that if the church declined to provide the documents voluntarily, he would
subpoena them - and indeed, he subsequently did so, But, to head off a court fight over
the subpoena, Cannon surrendered to a demand by the church's lawyers to keep the substance
of the documents a secret.

"The content and meaning and interpretations to be placed upon what is iterated
within the documents," Cannon wrote to Wilford Kirton, the church's lawyer, "is
either immaterial or of secondary concern as far as this investigation is concerned....
every reasonable measure will be employed to secure not only the documents themselves, but
the contents thereof, from scrutiny or discussion by anyone outside the authorized
investigative team...."

Cannon agreed to let church officials maintain a sign-in/sign-out log identifying
everyone who examined the documents and agreed with the church's demands that members of
his staff would have to turn over to the church all notes, photocopies,
photographs and negativesmade during examination of the documents. Cannon
ended his letter with an expression of thanks for the church's cooperation, a clause that
brought snickers from many of those in the War Room [i.e., the room where investigators
met to discuss strategy in the Hofmann investigation].

Richard Turley acknowledges that there were some problems regarding
documents the prosecution wanted and goes so far as to say that at one point Church
leaders were preparing to resist a subpoena:

"The next morning, [Apostle] Dallin Oaks telephoned Rowe... Rowe described the
burden the request imposed on the Historical Department and the risks it posed to the 261
books and manuscripts involved. Oaks, in turn, wrote to Thomas Monson of the First
Presidency about the request. "It would be a very large burden and risk for the
Church to produce 261 books and manuscripts, or to copy them," Oaks observed. He also
doubted the investigators really needed all they were seeking. He recommended that the
church go to court to resist the subpoena, even though "our
differences with the County Attorney would then become public." After
drafting the letter, Oaks received a telephone call from his fellow Historical Department
adviser, [Apostle] Boyd Packer... Hinckley and Packer both backed Oak's
recommendation. (Victims, page 248)

As it turned out, the Mormon Church did not go to court to resist any
of the subpoenas, but it did impose very unusual restrictions on the use of its documents.
This quibbling with investigators over access to documents undoubtedly cost prosecutors a
good deal of time that could have been spent on more important matters.

Michael P. George, of the county attorney's office, felt that
President Hinckley was not telling the truth about his dealings with Hofmann. On page 224
of his book, Richard Turley provided this information:

In response to other questions, Hinckley said he knew of no dealings between Hofmann
and general authorities of the church beyond those already mentioned. Mike George later
explained that "what we were talking about at that time was other dealings involving
Hofmann in regards to documents being sold to members of the First Presidency." When
Hinckley said he knew of no others, George did not believe him.

Hinckley answered based on his recollections, supplemented by information provided him
by Francis Gibbons and Glenn Rowe. Two pieces of information had eluded church
officials, however, in their attempts to reconstruct Hofmann's dealings
with the church. They recalled that the Grandin printing contract had been purchased by
the Historical Department using funds provided by the First Presidency. Later research
would convince them, however, that the transaction itself was closed in Hinckley's office.

The other elusive item was the Bullock-Young letter. Hofmann had given
it free to Hinckley for the church... In the more than four years that had elapsed since
the gift, Hinckley had forgotten about it... Later, Gibbons would rediscover the
Bullock-Young letterand bring it to Hinckley's attention, but on December
9, 1985, when George and Farnsworth interviewed him, the document had been
forgotten.

The Bullock letter was a very controversial Hofmann forgery which
church leaders assumed was authentic and suppressed in the First Presidency's vault. Mark
Hofmann had previously sold the Mormon Church a document he had forged in which Joseph
Smith blessed his son, Joseph Smith III. According to former Church Archivist Donald
Schmidt, Hofmann received material from the archives which was valued "in the
neighborhood of $20,000" for the blessing document. This blessing indicated that
Joseph Smith III was the prophet's true successor, not Brigham Young.

In the letter to President Brigham Young, Thomas Bullock
indicated that he would not turn over the blessing because he feared Young would destroy
it. Bullock told Young that he did not have "licence to destroy every remnant of the
blessing which he received from his Father... I will not, nay I can not, surrender that
blessing, knowing what its certain fate will be if returned..." (Victims,
page 61)

This letter tended to put Brigham Young in a very bad light, and
therefore Mormon leaders felt it must be suppressed. Turley relates that Mark Hofmann
brought the Bullock-Young letter directly to President Gordon B. Hinckley:

After Hinckley read the document, Hofmann said he was a believing, active Latter-day
Saint, that he wanted to give the original document to Hinckley, and that he did
not want to blackmail the church.... Hinckley asked, "Are you telling
me that you wish to give this document to the Church without cost?"

Yes, Hofmann answered. He also told Hinckley he had not kept a copy of the document for
himself... Hinckley discussed the matter with his fellow counselors in the First
Presidency, N. Eldon Tanner and Marion Romney.... The men decided to file the document in
the First Presidency's vault.(Victims, page 62)

President Hinckley was obviously fooled by Mark Hofmann's clever
attempt to make him believe he was a faithful Mormon. Since Hofmann told him that he had
not even retained a copy of the letter for himself, Hinckley apparently thought that he
could hide it in the First Presidency's vault and that it would never be brought to light.

It seems unlikely that Hinckley would have forgotten such an
important transaction with Hofmann. In any case, Richard Turley gives this information
about the matter on pages 232-233 of his book:

Also on January 8, Francis Gibbons transferred to Dean Larsen the original and a
typescript of the Bullock-Young letter, which Gibbons had rediscovered.... It was
overlooked until Gibbons happened across it.

The rediscovery of the letter put church officials in an awkward position.
Because the letter had been forgotten,it had not been
mentioned in the church's news conference or in previous interviews with
investigators.Undoubtedly, its discovery would subject church officials
to ridicule. Despite the likelihood of criticism, however, Hinckley directed Gibbons to
turn the letter over to investigators. In his memorandum to Larsen, Francis Gibbons wrote,
"The brethren understand you will make this letter available to the Salt Lake County
Attorney under a subpoena which has been served on the Church to produce all documents in
its possession received from Mark W. Hofmann... "

Michael George, of the county attorney's office, was rather upset
when he learned of the existence to the Thomas Bullock letter. In A Gathering
of Saints, page 274, Robert Lindsey reports what happened when the
"rediscovery" of the letter became known:

After being issued a subpoena, the church had released to Throckmorton and Flynn what
it said were all of the documents it had acquired from Hofmann since 1980, including some
that it had previously kept secret.

When the First Presidency's Vault yielded the letter presented to Gordon Hinckley by
Hofmann in which Thomas Bullock accused Brigham Young of having tried to destroy the
Blessing of Joseph Smith III, it caught the War Room by surprise.

"What else are they hiding?"Michael George demanded.
"None of the church historians I've talked to - Don Schmidt, Leonard Arrington, Dean
Jessee - even knew this existed. They've never heard of it.What
else do they have? Who knows what's in the First Presidency's Vault?"

Now that we know that the McLellin collection was also hidden in the
First Presidency's vault, Michael George's question concerning what else is in the vault
seems almost prophetic.

Mormon leaders were not only uncooperative with investigators when
it came to providing historical documents, but they were secretive regarding other matters
as well. The book, Mormon Murders, claimed that a detective by the name of John
Foster wanted to get a copy of a page from "the Church Administration Building
log" which showed Hofmann had come to the church offices on a certain day. According
to Naifeh and Smith, when Foster "went to pick up the photocopy, every entry except
the one relating to Hofmann had been whited out...giving police no way to
determine if relevant entries had been whited out along with irrelevant ones." (page
302)

Richard Turley, on the other hand, maintained that "the log
photocopy attached to Foster's police report has no whited-out entries. Investigative
Information Memo #840..." (Victims, page 439, footnote 1) After making this
point, however, Turley turns right around and says that "there was one Administrative
Building log page on which extraneous entries were whited out before being given
to police.It was a page for October 15, 1985, that was furnished
to investigators who asked when Hofmann met with [Apostle] Dallin Oaks on that day. The
unmasked entry answered their question, and they did not ask to see the other entries, which
had been whited outbecause they were irrelevant to the question and because
church officials felt ethically bound to protect church visitors' privacy unless required
by investigators to do otherwise." (Ibid., pages 439-40)

That the Mormon Church would find it necessary to hide such
information from the police is certainly strange. We would expect that type of reaction
from the CIA or the FBI, but to have a church which proclaims that it operates "in
full light" with "no secrecy about its doctrine, aim, or purpose" behave in
such a manner makes one rather curious as to what is really going on. It also seems
strange that there was no attempt to force the church leaders to produce the original log.
While there may not have been anything else of importance in the log, the fact that most
of the material was deleted would make one wonder if Hofmann met with Apostle Oaks more
than once on the day of the two murders or if other important figures involved with
Hofmann or the McLellin transaction were in Oaks' office that day. The entire log book
should have been subpoenaed and thoroughly examined for all meetings between church
leaders and Hofmann as well as others who were in any way associated with Hofmann's
document deals. We seriously doubt that other people in Salt Lake City would have received
the preferential treatment which the LDS leaders received in the Hofmann investigation.

At any rate, on page 247 of his book, Richard Turley admits that
this was not the only time that the church "removed or masked information"
provided to investigators:

When Mike George delivered one [subpoena] the next day, the county's request had
expanded to "any records, check out slips, logs, cards, or other documentation of
visits to the LDS Church Historical Archives and the documents, books, catalogs, letters,
information, etc" that Hofmann and five others had used since 1975....

The next day, February 20, a county investigator delivered a subpoena to the church's
Missionary Department asking for missionary records pertaining to Hofmann and one of his
associates.... library circulation records and missionary records dealt with living
individuals and thus raised issues of privacy that were hot topics among legal scholars,
librarians, and archivists across the United States. Church officials felt a
responsibility to comply with the subpoenas while at the same time fulfilling their legal
and ethical responsibility to safeguard the privacy of living individuals. Thus in
responding to requests for information, officials sometimes removed or masked
information not specifically required by the investigators. When Kirton received
the missionary records, he reviewed them and eliminated portionsnot
required by the subpoena.... On February 27, Kirton sent the screened materials on
to the county.

Although the tide of Richard Turley's book begins with the word Victims,
it is basically the story of only one victim, the Mormon Church. The story of the real
victims of the tragedy seems to be glossed over. While we have to agree that the church
was a victim of Mark Hofmann's devious plans, we feel that Richard Turley, Apostle Dallin
Oaks and other church officials have painted a role of martyrdom which does not fit with
the facts.

When a person carefully examines the evidence, it becomes evident
that church leaders shot themselves in the foot. The Mormon church hierarchy must accept a
great deal of blame for the tone of the books and articles which have tended to embarrass
the church. The fact that church leaders alienated a significant number of the
investigators who worked on the Hofmann case with their secrecy and lack of cooperation
seems to have made a very negative impression on the authors who interviewed them.

It seems that the Mormon leaders and the investigators were on a
collision course from the day of the bombings. Church officials felt that in order to
prevent embarrassment to the church they had to remain as quiet as possible about the
McLellin collection Hofmann had dreamed up and the role Hofmann, Christensen and Sorenson
were playing in its suppression. The investigators, on the other hand, needed this very
information to solve the murder case. Although the Mormon leaders' main concern seems to
have been to protect the church and themselves from embarrassment, they ended up
obstructing the investigation, wasting the valuable time of investigators and,
consequently, delaying the arrest of the murderer.

If the leaders of the Mormon Church did not make such extravagant
claims concerning their prophetic ability to detect and fight off evil influences, it
might be easier to accept the idea that they were martyrs in the Hofmann scandal. Joseph
Smith, the first Mormon prophet, maintained that in his youth he had seen a vision of both
God and Christ. In this vision he was told that all other churches were corrupt. The
following statement by Smith is taken from the Pearl of Great Price, one of the
four standard works of the church:

... I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was
right... and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them,
for they were all wrong;and the Personage who addressed me said that all
their creeds were an abomination in his sight;that those professors were
all corrupt;that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but, their
hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of
godliness, but they deny the power thereof." He again forbade me to join with
any of them... (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:18-20)

Mormon leaders teach that all other churches are in a state of
apostasy, More than fifty pages of the Introduction to the History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are devoted to proving that all churches except the
Mormon Church are in apostasy. The following is found on page XL: "Nothing less than
a complete apostasy from the Christian religionwould warrant the
establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Church members are
taught that only men who hold the Mormon priesthood have the authority to administer in
the ordinances of the gospel. Consequently, those who perform baptisms in other churches
do not operate with any authority and such baptisms are invalid in the sight of God.

The Mormons, as we have pointed out, claim to be led by revelation
from God. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie made these claims regarding Mormon revelation:

Our Lord's true Church is established and founded upon revelation.Its
identity as the true Church continues as long as revelation is received
to direct its affairs... without revelation there would be no legal administrators to
perform the ordinances of salvation with binding effect on earth and in heaven.... Since
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's true Church;
and since the Lord's Church must be guided by continuous revelation... we could safely
conclude... that the Church today is guided by revelation.... the Spirit is giving
direct and daily revelation to the presiding Brethren in the administration of
the affairs of the Church.... The presence of revelation in the Church is positive proof
that it is the kingdom of God on earth.... For those who reject these revelations
there awaits the damnation of hell. (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 646,
647, 650)

Apostle McConkie also stated: "Members of the First Presidency,
Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch to the Church - because they are appointed and
sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church - are known as the living
oracles." (Ibid., p. 547)

Unfortunately for church leaders, Mark Hofmann has put the claim of
revelation in the church to the acid test and found that the "living
oracles" are just as fallible as other men. Because of this, President
Hinckley, Apostle Oaks and other Mormon leaders find themselves in a very embarrassing
position. At a time when revelation was really needed, they seemed to be completely in the
dark as to what was going on.

In his youth Mark Hofmann undoubtedly was taught that Mormon Church
leaders were led by revelation and had the gift of discernment to detect deceivers. The
prophet Joseph Smith, in fact, claimed he received a revelation from God himself warning
him that his enemies were falsifying an important religious document (see Doctrine and
Covenants, Section 10). Hofmann, however, finally came to the conclusion that the
church was not led by revelation and that he could even deceive the "living
prophets" and the top Mormon scholars. In his confession, Mr. Hofmann said that he
could "look someone in the eye and lie" and didn't believe that "someone
could be inspired" in a religious sense as to what "my feelings or thoughts
were." He claimed that he "had lost faith in the Mormon Church" and that he
"wasn't fearful of the Church inspiration detecting the forgery."(Hofmann's Confession, pages 99, 112)

Not only did church leaders fail to forsee through revelation the
threat Hofmann presented to the church, but they completely ignored the many warnings
about Hofmann's documents which began appearing in our newsletter about eighteen months
before the bombings. In Victims, page 89, Richard Turley commented about this
matter: "Surprisingly, the article [in the Salt Lake City Messenger, March
19841 concluded, 'While we would really like to believe that the [Salamander] letter
attributed to Harris is authentic, we do not feel that we can endorse it until further
evidence comes forth....' " The Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1984, reported
that "The Tanners suggestion of forgery has surprised some Mormons, who note that the
parallels in wording also could be taken as evidence of authenticity." Thirteen
months before the murders, September 1, 1984, the church's own Deseret News printed
the fact that "outspoken Mormon Church critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner suspect the
document is a forgery, they told the Deseret News." In an article published in the New
York Times after the bombings, Robert Lindsey wrote:

In a newsletter that he publishes with his wife, Sandra, Mr. Tanner began raising
questions about their authenticity, in some cases comparing the texts with known Mormon
writings.

But if senior Mormon officials were aware of his warnings, they apparently paid little
attention. Several of the church's highest officials have acknowledged negotiating to
acquire documents from Mr. Hofmann until the day of the first two bombings. (New York
Times, Feb. 16, 1986)

Richard Lindsey has a quotation from Hugh Pinnock, the Mormon
General Authority who was working on the McLellin transaction, which indicates that church
leaders still believed in Hofmann two or three days after the bombings. Writing on April
17, 1986, Pinnock observed: " 'It seems that Hofmann has left a trail of evidence.
The only effective manner to understand this situation is to realize that M[ark] H[ofman]
was well considered before 10-17 or l8th even though he fooled us
all.M[ark] H[ofman] did not internalize the gospel.' " (Victims,
page 271)

Apostle Dallin Oaks met with Mark Hofmann just hours after he had
killed Kathleen Sheets and Steven Christensen. Oaks never suspected that Hofmann was
involved in the bombings and encouraged him to go on with the McLellin transaction. On
page 153 of Victims, Richard Turley wrote: "Oaks asked Hofmann if he still
intended to proceed with the closing on the collection... Oaks told him he ought to get in
touch with David E. West, Sorensen's attorney, who would doubtless wonder how
Christensen's death would affect the transaction.... Oaks thanked Hofmann for his
work in discovering church documents and for his willingness to sell the McLellin
collection to someone 'friendly' to the church."

Apostle Oaks later made a feeble attempt to explain why church
leaders were unable to detect Hofmann's evil plans (see Confessions of a White
Salamander, page 64). He commented: "But why, some still ask, were his deceits
not detected by the several Church leaders with whom he met?" Oaks maintained that
Church leaders "cannot be suspicious and questioning" of the many people they
meet with every year and noted that if "they fail to detect a few deceivers... that
is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and
blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see."

Apostle Oaks never really answered the question. Mark Hofmann was
not meeting with church leaders for "counseling, comforting, and blessing." He
was meeting with them for the express purpose of deceiving them so that they would give
him large amounts of money and authentic documents in exchange for his fraudulent
documents. Furthermore, he had many visits with high Mormon officials. These meetings went
on for years, yet church leaders were unable to discern the wicked plan that Hofmann had
in his heart.

While the Mormon leaders claim to have the same powers as the
ancient apostles in the Bible, their performance with regard to Mark Hofmann certainly did
not match up to that of Apostle Peter when he caught Ananias and Sapphira redhanded in
their attempt to deceive the church with regard to a financial transaction: "But
Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to
keep back part of the price of the land?" (Acts 5:3)

In a revelation given by Joseph Smith on March 8, 1831, the Lord
warned against being "seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils...
beware lest ye are deceived;and that ye may not be deceived seek ye
earnestly the best gifts... it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities
of operations... to others the discerning of spirits.... And to
the bishop of the church, and unto such as God shall appoint... are to have it given unto
them to discern all those gifts lest there shall be any among you professing and
yet be not of God." (Doctrine and Covenants 46:7, 8,16,23,27)

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie proclaimed that church leaders did
have the gift of discernment: "...the gift of the discerning of spirits is
poured out upon presiding officials in God's kingdom; they have it given to them
to discern all gifts and all spirits, lest any come among the saints and practice
deception.... There is no perfect operation of the power of discernment without
revelation. Thereby even 'the thoughts and intents of the heart' are made known.... Where
the saints are concerned... the Lord expects them to discern, not only between the
righteous and the wicked, but between false and true philosophies, educational
theories, sciences, political concepts and social schemes." (Mormon Doctrine,
page 197)

It would seem that if these powers were really functioning in the
church today, the "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" would have received a revelation
warning him concerning Mark Hofmann's "cunning plan" to defraud and disgrace the
church. Furthermore, a revelation regarding his deception would have prevented two people
from dying.

Spencer W. Kimball, who was the prophet and president of the church
at the time Hofmann first began deceiving church leaders, was supposed to be a
"seer" and have the power to "translate all records that are of ancient
date" (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 8:13). The Book of Mormon also says that "a seer
is greater than a prophet... a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is
greater can no man have... a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things
which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret
things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light..." (Mosiah 8: 15-17)

When Mark Hofmann brought the forged Anthon transcript, which was
supposed to contain characters Joseph Smith copied from the gold plates of the Book of
Mormon, President Kimball was unable to translate the characters. Instead of using the
"seer stone," he examined the characters which appear on the transcript with a
magnifying glass. Not only did he fail to provide a translation, but he was unable to
detect that the church was being set up to be defrauded of a large amount of money and
many historical items out of its archives. Moreover, he entirely failed to see the
devastating and embarrassing effect this transaction and others which followed would have
on the Mormon Church. If ever revelation from the Lord was needed, it was on that day in
1980 when Mark Hofmann stood in the presence of President Kimball.

As President Kimball grew older, he became less able to function and
President Gordon B. Hinckley took over many of his responsibilities and became to all
appearances the acting president of the church. Hinckley, who posed with Mark Hofmann,
President Kimball and other church leaders in a photograph taken in 1980, was also
deceived on a number of occasions by Mr. Hofmann. He, together with Apostle Boyd K. Packer
(also shown in the picture), approved many of the deals the church made with Hofmann.

It appears that if the Mormon Church was ever led by revelation, it
has been lacking since Mark Hofmann came into the church offices with the Anthon
transcript. The inability of Mormon leaders to detect the religious fraud perpetrated upon
them raises a question with regard to their testimony regarding the authenticity of the
Book of Mormon. After all, if they could not determine that Hofmann's documents which were
supposed to be only 150 years old - were forgeries, how can we trust their judgment with
regard to a record which is supposed to be ten times as old?

The reader will remember that Apostle McConkie maintained that
"the Spirit is giving direct and daily revelation to the presiding Brethren
in the administration of the affairs of the Church." One would think that if such
revelation was in operation, Mark Hofmann would have been exposed years before the
bombings. With regard to the inability of the Mormon leaders to detect that the Hofmann
documents were fraudulent, a person might argue that these documents were not really
important spiritual writings, and therefore the Lord did not see fit to intervene when the
General Authorities examined them. The truth of the matter, however, is that they
contained extremely important material directly relating to spiritual affairs. The
Salamander letter, for example, changed the story of the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph
Smith to that of a cantankerous and tricky "old spirit" who transformed himself
from a white salamander and struck Joseph Smith. Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks tried to
reconcile the Salamander letter with Joseph Smith's account by saying: "One wonders
why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of
'salamander,' which may even have been the primary meaning... That meaning... is 'a
mythical being thought to be able to live in fire.'... A being that is able to live in
fire is a good approximationof the description Joseph Smith gave
of the Angel Moroni... the use of the words white salamanderand old spirit seem understandable." ("1985 CES Doctrine and
Covenants Symposium," pages 22-23) After the Salamander letter was proclaimed a
forgery, Apostle Oaks must have been very embarrassed that he ever made such an outlandish
statement.

Significantly, some of the purported Joseph Smith writings which
Hofmann sold to the church contain revelations from the Lord himself. For instance, the
Joseph Smith III Blessing document gives this message from the Lord: "Verily, thus
saith the Lord: if he abides in me, his days shall be lengthened upon the earth, but, if
he abides not in me, I, the Lord will receive him, in an instant, unto myself."

Mark Hofmann also forged an 1838 Joseph Smith letter to his brother,
Hyrum, which the Mormon Church purchased in 1983. This letter was in its entirety a
revelation purporting to come from the Lord. It begins with the words, "Verily thus
Saith the Lord," and ends with the word "Amen." The fact that Mormon
leaders were not able to recognize the spurious nature of these revelations casts doubt
upon their ability to discern the truthfulness of the other revelations given by Joseph
Smith.

The church has always claimed that it is virtually impossible for a
person to write a revelation that would compare with Joseph Smith's. It now appears,
however, that there is someone who can write revelations comparable to Joseph Smith's and
that it is even possible to get them past the scrutiny of the highest leadership of the
Mormon Church.

As we have noted earlier, another thing that shows the church's lack
of revelation in times of crisis is the way the rediscovery of the McLellin collection was
handled. President Spencer W. Kimball died about three weeks after the bombings, and Ezra
Taft Benson became the 13th prophet on Nov. 10, 1985. It was only four months after Benson
became president of the church that the McLellin collection was found in the First
Presidency's vault. On page 250 of his book, Richard Turley affirms that this information
was reported to the First Presidency in March 1986.

One would think that at this vital period in the church's history
President Benson, "the living prophet," would have had the insight to inform the
other members of the First Presidency that the McLellin collection must be made available
to investigators. Instead of Benson receiving the word of the Lord to point the church in
the proper way, it seems that the heavens were silent and the Mormon leaders were left to
their own devices. While there are probably some Mormons who would suggest that President
Benson was led by the Lord to suppress the discovery, we believe that most members of the
church would feel that such an idea would be unthinkable.

Some may excuse Benson's failure in this matter by saying that he
was too advanced in age to deal with such problems. While there may be some truth in such
an argument (he was 86 years old at that time and just recently turned 93), this
explanation does not provide much comfort to the faithful. If Benson is not really capable
of leading the church through revelation, who is in control? Although there were six
General Authorities in the Mormon Church who were informed about this matter, none of them
stepped forward to help investigators!

Although Apostle Dallin Oaks would have us believe that
"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church
authorities," there seems to be no way to get around the fact that they must bear a
great deal of the responsibility in the Hofmann affair. If they had been open and
forthright about historical documents, Mr. Hofmann would not have approached them with his
blackmail-like documents with the idea of filling his pockets with the church's money.
Hofmann's knowledge of the fact that church leaders were anxious to keep anything
embarrassing from falling into the hands of church critics set the stage for the tragic
events which followed.

We understand that Lynn Packer, the man who brought to light the
story concerning Paul Dunn's deception, was working on the story concerning the
rediscovery of the McLellin even before we became aware of it. It is reported that his
article on the subject may appear in the November issue of Utah Holiday magazine.
We are looking forward to this article.

Those who wish to know more about the Mark Hofmann case should
obtain our books, Tracking the White Salamander and Confessions of a White
Salamander. Both books are now available in one volume for only $6.95(mail
orders add $2.00 minimum postage).

In our book, Satanic Ritual Abuse and Mormonism, we wrote the
following: "While we have been aware of the influence of the occult for many years, we
were always somewhat suspicious of some of the tales of ex-Satanists. We
have always tried to be very cautious about accepting stories concerning conspiracies
unless strong evidence could be marshaled to support the accusations. We have seen too
many people make the mistake of leveling serious accusations against individuals and
organizations without carefully considering all of the facts." (page 1)
Unfortunately, we have learned that there is a serious question with regard to Mike
Warnke's story regarding his involvement in Satanism. Warnke is a noted Christian comedian
who wrote the book, The Satan Seller. Mr. Warnke claimed that he became a satanic
high priest and had 1,500 followers! Warnke, in fact, claimed to be working for the
Illuminati.

Christian writers Jon Trott and Mike Hertenstein, who have done
extensive research concerning Mike Warnke's life, claim that they were unable to verify
his claims concerning Satanism. They, in fact, feel they have evidence to disprove his
published statements. They note, for example, that he started attending San Bernardino
Valley College on September 13, 1965,and then make this observation: "Mike
writes in The Satan Seller that it was after he started college that he first was
introduced to drugs, sex, and finally Satanism. And he continues, it was only after the
Satanists threw him out of their coven that he joined the navy. Warnke's military records
say he entered the navy on June 2, 1966. Therefore, whatever happened in Mike's life
regarding Satanism had to have happened between September 13, 1965, and June 2,
1966."(Cornerstone, vol.21, no. 98,page 9)

This, of course, gives Mike Warnke less than nine months to become a
Satanist and advance to his high position in Satanism. Trott and Hertenstein quote the
following from Warnke's book, Schemes of Satan:"In my own case, being
away from home at college and not having any close friends theremeant
that almost no one could have known what was happening to me except, of course, the
members of the Satanic Brotherhood, and they were not telling!" (Ibid.)
Trott and Hertenstein go on to reveal the following:

In reality, Mike Warnke simply did what countless other freshmen have done: he found a
new circle of friends. We found that new circle, and they were not part of the Satanic
Brotherhood. None of these people are mentioned by Warnke in The Satan Seller or
anywhere else.

Greg Gilbert was one of Mike's first and closest friends at college.... Greg reflects
upon the notoriety of his old college roommate. "After Mike became a star, I assumed
that since he had gotten this far with his Satan story, he'd always get away with
it. I never knew what to do. Who could you tell?"...

Greg's college girlfriend, Dawn Andrews, gave us her assessment.... "I remember
how upset I was when The Satan Seller came out, because what Warnke said
was a lie. He has a very fertile imagination."

Dyana Cridelich was another of Mike Warnke's college friends introduced by Greg.
"After he got famous, I always wanted to write him a letter and say, Mike, remember
me? The one you gave the silver cross to? When were you able to have this coven of
fifteen hundred people?Don't you remember, about the most exciting thing
we used to do was play croquet in Greg's backyard?" (Ibid.)

The same article points out that Mike Warnke became engaged to a
woman after he entered college and that she knew nothing about his satanic activities:

It was there that Lois Eckenrod, a girl who was soon to be his fiancee, joins the
story. "Mike and I, met in September or October, that first semester at Valley,"
Lois said. "It was only a couple of months before we got engaged, Hardly a
day went by that we didn't see each other."

His friends remember Mike Warnke as thin, with... short hair...
Yet Mike says in The Satan Seller that when college started... His hair, he writes,
was already collar length. Within a short time, he claims to have become a full-fledged
hippie: "I... bought some black pants and freaky shins. My hair was longerthan ever, and I bleached it blond...

"He looked like everybody else," says Greg....

On his Mike Warnke Alive! album, Mike further claims: "I'd had hepatitis
four times from shooting up with dirty needles. I had scabs all over my face from shooting
up crystal. I was a speed freak. I weighed 110 pounds soaking wet. My skin had turned
yellow. My hair was falling out. My teeth were rotting out of my head. I'd been
pistol-whipped five or six times. My jaw had been broken. My nose had been almost ripped
off. I had a bullet hole in my right leg. Two bullet holes in my left leg.'

Greg Gilbert and the others saw Mike on a daily basis, and say that it is totally
impossible for Mike to have had hepatitis, facial scabs from injecting
"crystal," and wounds from being shot three times. "Without us knowing it?
It's a lie,"Greg says.

Lois's reaction to Mike's tale? "That's just make-believe,"she states. "Mike never fell in with drugs... I was training to be a nurse, and I
think I would have known if he was using drugs. I wouldn't have dated Mike if he was
drugged."... Tim Smith... states he never saw Warnke with long hair or in the
drug-induced emaciated statehe claimed to be during that period....

By Christmas of 1965, Mike and Lois were seeing each other on a daily basis. "It
was pretty fast that we said we were going to get married," says Lois. "Within
two or three months of school starting, he gave me a rose ring with a diamond in it. It
cost $60. He had to make payments on it.... "

In The Satan Seller, Warnke has gone through his drugs, sex, and promotion to
high priest before Christmas of 1965.... Shirley Schrader says Mike had Christmas dinner
in Crestline with the family. "He didn't seem emaciated by drugs to me," she
says....

According to The Satan Seller, Mike Warnke's reign as a satanic high priest
ends, apparently sometime in the spring of 1966, when Warnke crumples under the strain of
too much responsibility and too many drugs. On a "Focus on the Family" radio
broadcast, he described his appearance at this time: "I had white hair. It
was about down to my belt... I had six-inch fingernails; I painted them
black"... On the Mike Warnke Alive! album he describes his
hair length the night before boot camp: "It hit me just below the pockets."
He continues: "The night before I went to boot camp I went to this party.... I smoked
a bunch of dope and ate a bunch of reds... the girl I was with decided the thing that
would really be cute is if she braided my hair... She... braided
it all together, and hung a jingle bell on the end of each braid.'

Lois says she was the girl who gave Mike his going-away party.
When she heard this story for the first time in 1979, she was furious. "I couldn't
believe it when I heard that!" she says. "I'm the one who gave him the
going-away party! We never touched drugs. He never had long hair - his hair was
short, short, short!"

Greg and Dawn... offered Lois the use of their apartment for the party. (Ibid, pages
9-12)

On page 8, Cornerstone has a photograph of Mike Warnke
reportedly taken April 30, 1966. Instead of showing that he had white hair reaching down
to his belt, it supports his fiancee's claim that his hair "was short, short,
short!"

The reader may wonder what effect the charges against Warnke will
have on our views regarding Satanic ritual abuse. Actually, we have never cited Mike
Warnke as an authority on this subject. Although we had no idea of the depths of the
problem, we had heard there might be questions regarding his claims about Satanic
involvement. Consequently, we did not consult his books in preparing our material.

Actually, Mike Warnke's works present a problem with regard to the
claim that human sacrifice takes place in Satanic rituals. When he was interviewed on The
Oprah Winfrey Show, Warnke claimed he was never involved in such sacrifices:

WINFREY: Did you witness killings?

Mr. WARNKE: No, I never did. I never witnessed a human
sacrifice...youjust heard rumors of it even within the
occult... (The Oprah Winfrey Show, Sept. 30, 1986, Transcript #8607, pp. 8-9)

While Mike Warnke claimed he had 1,500 followers in the satanic
cult, he stated that he had no first-hand information about human sacrifice. For this
reason the book, The Satanism Scare, page 130, uses Warnke as a witness against
those who hold to the idea of satanic ritual abuse. If Mike Warnke was really
involved in an important position in Satanism, his statement that he had no personal
knowledge of human sacrifices might throw some doubt on the stories told by the survivors
of satanic ritual abuse. Unless, however, Warnke can in some way overthrow the strong case
that Cornerstone has built against him, his testimony concerning Satanism is of no
value to either side of the controversy. Those who would like to know more about the
Warnke problem can obtain a copy of Cornerstone, vol. 21, no.98, for $2.00
from Cornerstone, 939 W. Wilson Ave., Chicago, IL 60640.

The reader will notice that on the front page of this newsletter we
have a special price on our book, Satanic Ritual Abuse and Mormonism, if it is
ordered before December 31, 1992.

In the Bible, we are told that when Pilate brought Jesus before his
enemies, "they cried out, 'Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!' Pilate said to
them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king
but Caesar!' So he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and
led him away." (New King James Version, John 19: 15-16)

Like the chief priests who lived almost 2,000 years ago, we are all
confronted with the question of what we are going to do with Jesus. Are we going to
receive him as the king of our lives or crucify him in our hearts? Jesus himself said:
"He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me
scatters." (Matthew 12:30) God has given each of us a free will so that we can make
our own decision. We can either fall down before him and cry out, "My Lord
and my God"(John 20: 28), or we can be like those mentioned in a
parable who said, "We will not have this man to reign over us."
(Luke 19:1)

The Bible says there are eternal consequences involved in this
decision. Speaking to those who questioned his divinity, Jesus said: " 'He who
believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not
see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.' " (John 3:36)

In our natural condition we are not fit subjects for the kingdom of
God. In Isaiah 59:1-2 we read:

Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; nor His ear heavy, that
it cannot hear.

But your iniquities have separated you from your God;and your
sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.

In his book, Plain Christianity, page 75, J. B. Phillips
speaks of the gulf that separates us from God: "For the gulf between us and God is
not merely an intellectual one - it is not that God is infinitely wise and we, by
comparison, blundering fools, though that is true - but the real gulf lies in the moral
realm. You and I, through our own sins and failures, as well as by the infection of the
sins of other people, are separated from God by a moral gulf."

In Romans 3:23 we find that "all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God." Because of our sinful condition we do not know the personal God
who wishes to have fellowship with us. Fortunately, however, God has prepared a way for
our salvation through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross:

And youHe made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the
prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the
others.

But God, who isrich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (bygrace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the
heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding
riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2: 1-10)

Although we usually think of the emperors of Rome when we hear the
word "Caesar," anything which controls our lives and keeps us from coming to the
Lord could be considered to be as tyrannical to our soul as Caesarwas
to the people who lived in the Holy Land during the time of Jesus. When the Pharisees were
trying to trick Jesus, they brought him a coin. Jesus looked at it and said, " 'Whose
image and inscription is this?' They said to Him, 'Caesar's.' And He said to them, 'Render
therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.'
" (Matthew 22: 20-21)

If we become enslaved to the desire for money, for instance, we find
ourselves worshipping in the court of Caesar. We find these words of Jesus recorded in
Matthew 6:19-21:

Donot lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break through and
steal.

For where your treasure is, there your heart willbe also.

The way of Caesar is the popular way. It is disastrous when we put
our desires for fame, power or riches above our relationship with the Lord. In John 5:44,
Jesus warned: "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not
seek the honor that comes from the only God?" While it is certainly worth it, there
is a price we have to pay if we desire to follow Jesus:

Then Jesus said to His Disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

"For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for
My sake will find it.

"For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own
soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"

We accepted the Lord into our lives over thirty years ago and have
never been sorry for that decision. While life on this earth is not always easy, we have
great joy and peace and have received many answers to prayer. Moreover, we look forward to
the time when we will have inexpressible joy in the kingdom of heaven.

Instead of saying, "We have no king but Caesar," we would
urge all our readers to turn their lives over to God so that they can say: